*** Tottenham Hotspur Vs Forest *** OMT

[Junior19]

He's had 16 league games!

The problem with your 'the manager is the problem' hypothesis is that he's punched above his weight as a manger. BUT he was given time, and didn't excel at first.

The other problem with your approach is the myriad managers we've sacked who've been very successful elsewhere. So were they the issue too? Or was a lack of long term building, stability, strategy the issue? Having run multiple organisations myself, I know which camp I am in.

Again, I'm not calling for his head.

I don't think he is the _only_ problem. He does however need to start convincing us that he knows what the solutions to the problems are. The way to do that may be to convince the players that he knows what the solutions are. But nothing in the body language, facial expressions, or match management from the players at the moment gives off that vibe.

I'm all for stability, not making rash changes. I'm more than happy to give him time, but I need to know where we are going! As long as we have a direction, and the actions and words from the manager, coaches and the team adds up to that direction, I'd back any manager from here to the end of time. (or the end of his contract, anyway).

 

[Junior19]

Not saying any your proposed changes wouldn't have worked, just suggesting different.
Spence for Porro. Yes Porro does have a good delivery, but it's not been there for a couple of weeks, hitting the first man with an Eriksen like consistency. Porro is possibly being over played.
Tel or Odobert for Richie, move rkm into the middle.
Davies on at lb.
Bergvall for Bentancur.

All very possible changes, and all of those would have given me more sense of at least a desire to chase the game then what was done.

My suggestion would still have a major problem, since our press resistance is so poor at the moment, and I don't really suggest anything that would solve that. My prerogative as an armchair general..

 

[braineclipse]

He's had 16 league games!

The problem with your 'the manager is the problem' hypothesis is that he's punched above his weight as a manger. BUT he was given time, and didn't excel at first.

The other problem with your approach is the myriad managers we've sacked who've been very successful elsewhere. So were they the issue too? Or was a lack of long term building, stability, strategy the issue? Having run multiple organisations myself, I know which camp I am in.

No doubt he's a good and talented manager. Is he the right manager for us though?

Long term building and strategy should imo not be primarily down to the manager. It's important that the manager is well aligned with that strategy and what the manager himself needs is important. But he's there to fit into the overall strategy, not create it.

I definitely agree that managers will need time, but it's also their job to show that they're deserving of that time in the process.

I'm very much open to the idea that it's too soon for him to show us what he can do here. Him needing time. But at some point he has to show some clear positive signs of improvement.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Again, I'm not calling for his head.

I don't think he is the _only_ problem. He does however need to start convincing us that he knows what the solutions to the problems are.

Isn't that obvious? It is to sign ready-made players. Or show patience to develop the players we have. What shortcuts are there? The idea that a formation can mask inexperience and issues with ability is flawed.

The way to do that may be to convince the players that he knows what the solutions are. But nothing in the body language, facial expressions, or match management from the players at the moment gives off that vibe.

Winning breeds confidence. We don't have many senior established players. Which is another reason to show some patience.

I'm all for stability, not making rash changes. I'm more than happy to give him time, but I need to know where we are going! As long as we have a direction, and the actions and words from the manager, coaches and the team adds up to that direction,

Can you give an example?

I'd back any manager from here to the end of time. (or the end of his contract, anyway).

Let's be candid, if we are winning fans are onside. Lose and the tide turns instantly.

 

[SpurMeUp]

No doubt he's a good and talented manager. Is he the right manager for us though?

Long term building and strategy should imo not be primarily down to the manager. It's important that the manager is well aligned with that strategy and what the manager himself needs is important. But he's there to fit into the overall strategy, not create it.

I definitely agree that managers will need time, but it's also their job to show that they're deserving of that time in the process.

I'm very much open to the idea that it's too soon for him to show us what he can do here. Him needing time. But at some point he has to show some clear positive signs of improvement.

Are all club situations and players the same? If no, then why would the solution be the same? Why would you discern that the manager has to show that they deserve time, and what does that look like? You win lose or draw.

 

[Junior19]

Isn't that obvious? It is to sign ready-made players. Or show patience to develop the players we have. What are shortcuts are there? The idea that a formation can mask inexperience and issues with ability is flawed.

A single formation is not the fix-all. Never has been, never will be. But you -can- avoid exposing your own weaknesses, inexperience and lack of abilty by not playing right at them all the time.

Can you give an example?

Any indication that he can change a game where something has gone tits up would be a good start!

What I'm seeing so far is quite a bit of "the plan doesn't work the way I thought it would. I'd better change some players, and keep on with the plan. Nothing is wrong with the plan!"

And even that -could- be ok, if we occationally got a glimpse of that plan working on a regular basis. Unlike some on here who seems to think that our performances against Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Brentford and Slavia Prague were good, I didn't. They were (in order) poor (and lucky), ok and ok. The last two should however have been "stepping stones" and confidence growers.
That went down the drain on City Ground.

 

[braineclipse]

No anger mate I'm just responding to what i see as the key point of your post - you say that you want to be patient, so be patient

I think that there is a lot of 'I'll give patience, but only if certain criteria is met straightaway' being banded about - that to me is a contradictory position to hold.

I guess that's part of my position. Depending on the straight away thing.

We're 16 league games in. 3 games away from half a season, no? If half a season is straight away I guess I will hold that contradictory position. Yes, my patience is conditional.

I think half a season should be enough to at least show some signs of how the manager wants us to play longer term. Is that unreasonable?

To me we have been rather dull and boring, uninspiring at the very least. To me we've been repeatedly second best in too many games also against teams that aren't top teams.

We're 11th, but to me we've gotten better results than our performances warrant. That's also what xG numbers point towards. Fotmob has us on 18 expected points after 16 games. A bit better than relegation form. CL to me is similar in terms of performances and results.

To me it's not good enough. I'm happy to give him time, but he has to show improvements at some point this season at the very least. What's your timeline? Keep performing like this for the full season and then give him another season almost regardless? Or will some conditions to patience show up at some point this season if we keep performing like this?

 

[SpurMeUp]

A single formation is not the fix-all. Never has been, never will be. But you -can- avoid exposing your own weaknesses, inexperience and lack of abilty by not playing right at them all the time.

So what are you suggesting? Which formation would sort us out?

Any indication that he can change a game where something has gone tits up would be a good start!

What I'm seeing so far is quite a bit of "the plan doesn't work the way I thought it would. I'd better change some players, and keep on with the plan. Nothing is wrong with the plan!"

And even that -could- be ok, if we occationally got a glimpse of that plan working on a regular basis. Unlike some on here who seems to think that our performances against Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Brentford and Slavia Prague were good, I didn't. They were (in order) poor (and lucky), ok and ok. The last two should however have been "stepping stones" and confidence growers.
That went down the drain on City Ground.

You ahve to build on something consistent. Constantly changing isn't going to solve a problem which is most likely a lack of stability. We need to build off a defensive foundation and be patient.

 

[Mikey10]

No doubt he's a good and talented manager. Is he the right manager for us though?

Long term building and strategy should imo not be primarily down to the manager. It's important that the manager is well aligned with that strategy and what the manager himself needs is important. But he's there to fit into the overall strategy, not create it.

I’m not sure we’ve had a strategy on the football side of the club under ENIC.

We struck lucky with Poch. Other than that, it’s been a series of short-term decisions, none of which have really worked out. The mismanagement of the footballing side of the club has been a scandal. We’ve been allowed to go from the Pochettino team to what we have now. Instead of building on success we continued to try our own bizarre way of trying to move further forward.

Sacking Frank now, as some (not necessarily you) seem to want means giving him a significant payoff; it probably means getting rid of/paying off a big chunk of his coaching team; as well as potentially scrapping some of the January targets he will have been involved with identifying; and ripping up yet another blueprint, this time before it’s had any chance to really bed in. It also lets this largely mentally weak squad, of largely average ability, off the hook.

Given how we operate, none of that would surprise me in the least.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I’m not sure we’ve had a strategy on the football side of the club under ENIC.

We struck lucky with Poch. Other than that, it’s been a series of short-term decisions, none of which have really worked out. The mismanagement of the footballing side of the club has been a scandal. We’ve been allowed to go from the Pochettino team to what we have now. Instead of building on success we continued to try our own bizarre way of trying to move further forward.

Sacking Frank now, as some (not necessarily you) seem to want means giving him a significant payoff; it probably means getting rid of/paying off a big chunk of his coaching team; as well as potentially scrapping some of the January targets he will have been involved with identifying; and ripping up yet another blueprint, this time before it’s had any chance to really bed in. It also lets this largely mentally weak squad, of largely average ability, off the hook.

Given how we operate, none of that would surprise me in the least.

Also we have just restructured the whole upper management of the club from top to bottom..............AGAIN. Taken another U-Turn on style and therefore profile of player I imagine.

Everything in that plays its part. Until we as a club and fanbase are comfortable in our own skin as a club and our own identity I can't see us changing anytime soon

I said for years, we should stop trying to be Chelsea (for example) and concentrating on being Tottenham and I maintain that

 

[thfcsteff]

It's definitely not the way I envisaged things going, but I would argue our league position could actually be more precarious than last season's. As many have pointed out, last term's bottom three pretty much always looked doomed regardless, so we never really looked vulnerable to the black swan event of one of them suddenly putting a run of results together. I'm not so confident that'll be true of all three this season.

Burnley and Wolves look like basket cases, but I could see West Ham pulling out of it. Add in the level of toxicity in the stadium and in the wider fanbase, and it creates a positive feedback cycle that might easily run out of control. It's already primed to intensify, IMO. Frank's was a short honeymoon, and he'd be at the mercy of that tide. We need a shot in the arm in the January window, and for any additions we make to hit the ground running in the new year.

I agree.
Liverpool is a massively important match, ditto Palace.

 

[thfcsteff]

So what are you suggesting? Which formation would sort us out?



You ahve to build on something consistent. Constantly changing isn't going to solve a problem which is most likely a lack of stability. We need to build off a defensive foundation and be patient.

(offered in the spirit of discussion and to genuinely try and discuss tactics)

Formation is not the issue. Intent on how a formation is being deployed is the question. Formations are fluid during a game anyway, from attack to defence sees different deployments. For me, a major issue has been that all too often this season we have had as many as 7 people behind the ball when we win it back/get possession, leaving the person on the ball nothing in terms of options other than to hold it if they can (typically Kudus). I think that's an issue. I think it's an issue that we don't appear to have attacking patterns, moves and triggers which leave us with more options on either transitions or in possession. Right now, the dependability on Kudus is hurting us and him massively.

Let me ask you this given that you have asked for patience and defensive stability. Would you as a supporter be OK with us playing a further 5-10 yards up the pitch in order to allow Romero and VdV to operate more within their skillsets, given that we do not bomb the FBs on inverted which therefore leaves them in 'better/less risky' defensive positions? It's something I think would benefit us greatly.

 

[SpurMeUp]

(offered in the spirit of discussion and to genuinely try and discuss tactics)

Formation is not the issue. Intent on how a formation is being deployed is the question. Formations are fluid during a game anyway, from attack to defence sees different deployments. For me, a major issue has been that all too often this season we have had as many as 7 people behind the ball when we win it back/get possession, leaving the person on the ball nothing in terms of options other than to hold it if they can (typically Kudus). I think that's an issue. I think it's an issue that we don't appear to have attacking patterns, moves and triggers which leave us with more options on either transitions or in possession. Right now, the dependability on Kudus is hurting us and him massively.

Let me ask you this given that you have asked for patience and defensive stability. Would you as a supporter be OK with us playing a further 5-10 yards up the pitch in order to allow Romero and VdV to operate more within their skillsets, given that we do not bomb the FBs on inverted which therefore leaves them in 'better/less risky' defensive positions? It's something

Sometimes we have too many men forwards and no easy ball out of defence. So not sure it is so simple as playing higher up the pitch.

Frank needs to stick to a setup for now and finesses it. Choose one (max two) formations/tactics and then simply play and refine it for 10+ games.

 

[thfcsteff]

Sometimes we have too many men forwards and no easy ball out of defence. So not sure it is so simple as playing higher up the pitch.

Frank needs to stick to a setup for now and finesses it. Choose one (max two) formations/tactics and then simply play and refine it for 10+ games.

Really? You think he has too many man forwards sometimes? I am not seeing that. I do see isolation between the front three and the rest of the team sometimes, and when we sit a little deeper to play full counter-attacking football, it feels like we often have far too many behind the ball, albeit he has addressed that to some degree by not playing Bentancur and Palhinha together.

Nothing with us would be simple, that's for sure. Unfortunately for me, playing 10 yrds higher up the pitch brings us into possession football, which appears to not be in his wheelhouse of interest.

I don't disagree that he needs to bed in a philosophy; I just continue to hope that philosophy is not Brentford 2.5.

One thing about tactical set-up. He arrived with very much the reputation of a coach who could make big tactical switches in games if the original course was not working. So effectively, what you want is for him to go against this? In fairness, I have not seen any great display of it anyway, beyond going to a back five to protect a lead by putting SuperKev on...

 

[SpurMeUp]

Really? You think he has too many man forwards sometimes? I am not seeing that. I do see isolation between the front three and the rest of the team

Yes no easy ball out of defence with attackers trying to play off the last man. You said everyone was behind the ball? But sometimes there are man up ahead of the ball - arguably too far ahead of it as we need one extra pass in midfield to make time/space to pass into the final third.

sometimes, and when we sit a little deeper to play full counter-attacking football, it feels like we often have far too many behind the ball, albeit he has addressed that to some degree by not playing Bentancur and Palhinha together.

Lots of different ways to setup. Frank just needs to find the right one and refine it. And no doubt that’s an issue for him now.

Nothing with us would be simple, that's for sure. Unfortunately for me, playing 10 yrds higher up the pitch brings us into possession football, which appears to not be in his wheelhouse of interest.

Yet we’ve been developing our passing ability. Showing (to me) that Frank is working in this with players. We routinely move the ball from defensive areas into crossing positions - and we do it quite well.

What then happens in the final third…the speed at which we can transition to the final third…players familiarity…confidence in the third….these are the issues for me.

I don't disagree that he needs to bed in a philosophy; I just continue to hope that philosophy is not Brentford 2.5.

Tbh it doesn’t matter what it is right now so long as he gets some results. Results buy space and time to refine our play. Brentford, during Franks tenure have played good football. Whether counter attacking with incision or possession based when romping through the championship.

One thing about tactical set-up. He arrived with very much the reputation of a coach who could make big tactical switches in games if the original course was not working. So effectively, what you want is for him to go against this? In fairness, I have not seen any great display of it anyway, beyond going to a back five to protect a lead by putting SuperKev on...

I think it goes back to formations not really being able to cover up player quality. You need gaming changing subs especially in attack. Frank has some 20 year olds. And given time he’ll make them into game winners. But that takes years.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

I’m not sure we’ve had a strategy on the football side of the club under ENIC.

We struck lucky with Poch. Other than that, it’s been a series of short-term decisions, none of which have really worked out. The mismanagement of the footballing side of the club has been a scandal. We’ve been allowed to go from the Pochettino team to what we have now. Instead of building on success we continued to try our own bizarre way of trying to move further forward.

Sacking Frank now, as some (not necessarily you) seem to want means giving him a significant payoff; it probably means getting rid of/paying off a big chunk of his coaching team; as well as potentially scrapping some of the January targets he will have been involved with identifying; and ripping up yet another blueprint, this time before it’s had any chance to really bed in. It also lets this largely mentally weak squad, of largely average ability, off the hook.

Given how we operate, none of that would surprise me in the least.

Wow! Just wow!

 

[thfcsteff]

Yes no easy ball out of defence with attackers trying to play off the last man. You said everyone was behind the ball? But sometimes there are man up ahead of the ball - arguably too far ahead of it as we need one extra pass in midfield to make time/space to pass into the final third.

Lots of different ways to setup. Frank just needs to find the right one and refine it. And no doubt that’s an issue for him now.

Yet we’ve been developing our passing ability. Showing (to me) that Frank is working in this with players. We routinely move the ball from defensive areas into crossing positions - and we do it quite well.

What then happens in the final third…the speed at which we can transition to the final third…players familiarity…confidence in the third….these are the issues for me.

Tbh it doesn’t matter what it is right now so long as he gets some results. Results buy space and time to refine our play. Brentford, during Franks tenure have played good football. Whether counter attacking with incision or possession based when romping through the championship.


I think it goes back to formations not really being able to cover up player quality. You need gaming changing subs especially in attack. Frank has some 20 year olds. And given time he’ll make them into game winners. But that takes years.

I am glad for you that you appear willing to simply trust his process without requirements. You're a better person than I...

 

[thfcsteff]

I’m not sure we’ve had a strategy on the football side of the club under ENIC.

We struck lucky with Poch. Other than that, it’s been a series of short-term decisions, none of which have really worked out. The mismanagement of the footballing side of the club has been a scandal. We’ve been allowed to go from the Pochettino team to what we have now. Instead of building on success we continued to try our own bizarre way of trying to move further forward.

Sacking Frank now, as some (not necessarily you) seem to want means giving him a significant payoff; it probably means getting rid of/paying off a big chunk of his coaching team; as well as potentially scrapping some of the January targets he will have been involved with identifying; and ripping up yet another blueprint, this time before it’s had any chance to really bed in. It also lets this largely mentally weak squad, of largely average ability, off the hook.

Given how we operate, none of that would surprise me in the least.

Yes indeed, well we did that in the summer. Only Tottenham Hotspur could put itself through so much hard suffering, come out the other side with a big shiny trophy, and decide there was no potential in a winning group possibly using said-trophy as a quantum leap forward. Not only that, but then shift the entire footballing strategy of the club back in a completely different direction.
Where do the likes of Williams-Barnett see their game time if this is our style?

In a sense it is very easy to feel sorry for Thomas. We're back to expecting Sissoko to be Pirlo. People are who they are, and he is very good at being who he is. Much as @billyiddo finds my personal conflict in these matters troubling (or just plain disagreeable) I cannot divorce myself from the dichotomy which is I like the man and feel sorry for him yet am losing patience waiting for a better version of Brentford 2.5 to rock up at the Lane!

 

[Lemonade Money]

Essentially, we’re all divas now!


I do get it, Spurs is meant to be an escape from the everyday. Or at least it should be. When performances are flat and start to feel routine, the natives inevitably revolt.


Personally, I don’t think the manager is as crucial in the short term as some make out. Over the long term, though, they’re fundamental. The problem is that you actually have to give them that long term for the benefits of a skilled manager to show: properly assessing the squad, developing players, and signing the right profiles we’re currently missing.


Frank may not be an instant hit, but I’m confident in him over time. His analysis and ability to develop the side are what will make the difference, given the chance.

Tell me more.

 

[mudshark]

One thing about tactical set-up. He arrived with very much the reputation of a coach who could make big tactical switches in games if the original course was not working. So effectively, what you want is for him to go against this? In fairness, I have not seen any great display of it anyway, beyond going to a back five to protect a lead by putting SuperKev on...

I was going to make the very same comment. It was his biggest selling-point as far as I was concerned, his rep for being tactically flexible and able to pivot from one system to another in-game, so it's been a big disappointment that we've seen such precious little evidence of it in action. It's obviously dependent on the available personnel, though, and I have wondered whether he just thinks the squad is too limited as is, which, of course, he wouldn't admit publicly, even if it were the case. It's perplexing, whatever the reason.